Is Obama On Drugs?

Serious question.

In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though,” he says.

On January 18, 2008, Larry Sinclair posted a YouTube video in which he claimed to have used cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999.

Some bloggers question whether Obama’s behavior during his “60 Minutes” interview was that of someone high on drugs: Obama’s 60-Minute “High”

The office of the President is not above the law. If Obama has been using illegal drugs, he has broken the law and should have to face the consequences. And since Obama has promised the most open and transparent administration ever, he has absolutely no excuse for not taking a drug test. If he is clean, let him prove it.

Employees all over this country have to take drug tests. Olympic athletes and many professional athletes have to take drug tests. Is the Presidency less important? No! It’s more important.

“We the people” should push for our new employee (Obama) to take a drug test.

Update: Maybe Obama will put her on his team now?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Is Obama On Drugs?

  1. Math says:

    Wow you’re really running out of ways to try to get rid of him aren’t you?

  2. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    You seem like a smart guy – then you go and link to Larry Sinclair. Seriously, you demand to know every last detail of the President’s life before you will accept him as legit, yet you buy into the rubbish that some clearly mentally ill person posts on the net just because it supports your cause.

    Your credibility on the Obama issue is right about zero.

  3. Jonah says:

    Yeah, sorry, but this is probably a new low for you. Anyone who has spent any amount of time around people on drugs will tell you that Obama isn’t high in that interview.

  4. Frin,

    then you go and link to Larry Sinclair

    No, I linked the Washington Post and Texas Darlin (a PUMA).

    I mentioned Larry Sinclair but didn’t link to him. For the purpose of this post, I was focused on the drug issue, and didn’t want to branch out into the other issues raised by Sinclair.

    That is not to say that I don’t think those other issues aren’t worthy of discussion, just that I wanted to focus on the drug issue.

    Fact: Obama admitted that “pot had helped” and admitted to using “blow” (cocaine).

    Fact: Obama has not proven, by means of a drug test, that he stopped using drugs.

    Fact: I would support having both Barack H. Obama and George W. Bush take a drug test. Heck, throw in Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, if you want.

    “We the people” employ the President of the United States. We have a right to know if our current and former employees (who are still supported by our tax dollars for Secret Service protection) are on illegal drugs.

  5. Jonah says:

    Red,

    I usually enjoy debating with you, but this isn’t a serious question, and I suspect (or at least hope) you know that. See you in another thread.

  6. It is a very serious question.

    You don’t think cocaine use is serious?

    When did Obama stop using cocaine?

    This is not a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question, since Obama himself admitted to his cocaine use, but didn’t say when that cocaine use stopped. Regardless of what you think about Larry Sinclair, he claims Obama used cocaine in 1999. Is Obama still using drugs? A drug test would be a good way to remove doubt.

    President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history

    Let’s see some transparency about his drug use.

    Can anyone give me a good reason why any public servant should be exempt from having to take a drug test when they start a new job? Is the Presidency less important than any other job that requires the new employee to take a drug test?

  7. Jonah says:

    I’d be happy to talk about drug testing in general, Red, but you’ve long ago proved that you’re incapable of having a serious conversation about Obama. Your inability to understand the difference between administrative transparency and personal transparency is baffling, and I’m sure it won’t be long before you’re asking for details about the president’s sex life. (After all, any position besides missionary was illegal in D.C. until recently.)

    So, sure, let’s talk about drug testing. I agree that employees whose drug habits affect their work should be fired. I oppose drug testing in most instances, though, because I think if drug use doesn’t affect someone’s work, then it’s none of the employer’s business.

    Now, of course, there are many jobs where it’s impractical (and irresponsible) to simply wait until job performance is affected, in particular jobs where citizens’ lives are on the line. I’m okay with drug testing for pilots, surgeons, and school bus drivers, for instance. And I can understand why the Department of Defense is particularly pushy about this, too.

    But, unfortunately, the jobs in this country where testing is common are very rarely the ones in which it makes sense. Why, for example, does Starbucks care about the drug use of its baristas? In fact, if you look at the jobs in which this testing is compulsory, you’ll find it skewed very sharply towards the lower-paying end of the employment spectrum.

    I’ve overheard unemployed people for whom this testing is a serious barrier to entry in the workforce, and frankly I find this appalling. This is not to say that drug use can’t be an issue; as endearing as Bubbles is, I wouldn’t really want him serving me coffee. But for otherwise well-adjusted people who are capable of presenting themselves and not letting their evening habits affect their jobs? Yes, drug testing is ridiculous.

  8. Your inability to understand the difference between administrative transparency and personal transparency is baffling

    Obama promised both.

    Now, of course, there are many jobs where it’s impractical (and irresponsible) to simply wait until job performance is affected, in particular jobs where citizens’ lives are on the line. I’m okay with drug testing for pilots, surgeons, and school bus drivers, for instance. And I can understand why the Department of Defense is particularly pushy about this, too.

    Lives are on the line. This man is acting as Commander in Chief of our military, so their lives are in his hands. And the “Nuclear Football” is always within a short distance of him.

    I’m not even asking for ongoing compulsory testing – at this point, I would be happy with a one-time “new employee drug screen”. I’ve taken the test for employers in the past. I don’t see how it’s any less important to test this new employee. It’s not less important…It’s orders of magnitude more important. The man admitted using two different illegal drugs, and has yet to prove that he is currently “clean”.

  9. Jonah says:

    But, as with the citizenship issue, we have no credible reason to require this proof, because there is absolutely no reason to suspect that this man is using drugs. To believe that the President of the United States, the person with possibly the least privacy of anyone in the country, is stealthily sneaking hits off a bong before going on national television and has somehow concealed this habit from the public despite being the center of attention for almost two years now, requires, well…. I don’t want to call it “idiocy,” but it’s hard to thing of more a polite word.

  10. But, as with the citizenship issue, we have no credible reason to require this proof.

    Is the President above the law?

    On the citizenship issue, can you tell me why the President should not have to obey the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act?

  11. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill,

    The President of the United States probably has blood tests more often than anyone else. He has dedicated staff to attend to his personal health. Those people know if he is on drugs, surely.

    He has been tested for drugs, and has been deemed fit for duty by his doctor.

    Here’s the link to his doctor’s Summary, which include the statement “urinalysis and CBC were normal”.

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html

    He is in excellent health, and exhibits no signs of drug use.

  12. Ryan,

    I’m sure you understand that there are numerous tests that can be performed on blood and urine. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that drug tests were performed.

    Five-year-old children frequently have to get a physical, including a urinalysis, for entrance into kindergarten. That doesn’t mean that they check five-year-olds for drugs. They don’t. They’re checking other health indicators.

    As a sidebar, I’ll give you a humorous story from when my child had to have such a physical. They handed my (then) five-year-old the specimen cup and gave the instructions to go into the bathroom and “pee in the cup”. My child looked at the nurse with a confused look, so the nurse repeated the instructions to go “pee in the cup”. My child then looked the nurse straight in the eyes and said in a loud voice, “You want me to drink my wee-wee?!?

    The whole place broke out in laughter.

  13. Ryan says:

    That’s hilarious. My son is five now, and I could see him thinking that.

    Yes typical urinalysis would not included a drug test, but I would think that they would be pretty thorough with the president’s pee. Also, the blood analysis would be very thorough, and would show any recent usage.

    If you wanted him to take a drug test, he could pass it with a few days notice, even if he was on drugs. It’s just not practical and there’s no reason to believe he is using anything.

  14. tom says:

    I love how Jonah tries to have a rational conversation with Itooktheredpill. Keep dreaming, dude. That ain’t happening any time soon, unless Itooktheredpill goes to see a psychiatriat and gets the meds he so obviously needs.

  15. tom,

    It’s time for you to go see your “psychiatriat” and refill your meds.

  16. tom says:

    Itooktheredpill — psychiatrists are what normal people see. Psychiatriats are who ‘tards go to talk to about Obama delusions.

  17. Jonah,

    Your inability to understand the difference between administrative transparency and personal transparency is baffling

    Here’s an administrative transparency issue for you:

    Real transparency would include fulfilling his campaign promise to post bills online for five days before signing them. The President has now signed ten bills into law and not subjected any of them to that five-day public review.

    Ten bills. That’s zero for ten in the transparency department.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s